Sunday - May 09, 2010

Happy Mother’s Day

Yeah, I stole this from The Jawa Report. Sue me.

Somebody had to do it…

Meanwhile. somebody’s mother is doing this…

Go Mom!!!

Posted by Christopher     on 05/09/2010 at 07:23 PM   
Filed Under: • Family • Holidays •  
• Comments (11) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - April 11, 2010

Honey, I’m Home!

If you can watch this and not shed a tear or two, you’re an Obamaite.

Posted by Christopher     on 04/11/2010 at 06:49 PM   
Filed Under: • Family • Patriotism •  
• Comments (11) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - December 03, 2009

Name and shame offenders – but not if it upsets family, says Government

Nobody wants to upset a family of innocents, and they do exist here and there. But this just seems another case of lopsided support for the criminal class.  For example, there’s another story in the paper of three brothers with looooong criminal records who are finally goin go to jail for various offenses.  They are known as The ASBROS.  One of them received three ASBOS (Anti Social Behavior Orders) in one month.  Now wouldn’t you think someone in city hall would see and understand that these things just don’t work. And anyway, it’s not easy shaming these scum, is it?
Sorry for the family that may not be in the wrong when one of the clan goes off the rails.  But there seems to be way too much consideration for the rights of the damned then there are for their victims.

Police intending to get tough on criminals by “naming and shaming” them on websites have been told details may not be published if it upsets the offender’s family or breaches their human rights.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
03 Dec 2009

Information on local offenders and their convictions will also only be online for a month and may not carry photographs after officers were told to consider any “"unjustifiably adverse effect” on the criminal.

First time offenders may escape be identified as could those who are undergoing drug or alcohol rehabilitation as part of their sentence.

In other cases, individuals may not be named at all while the public will simply be told that “someone” was brought to justice while in other situations the details will be handed out in leaflets locally rather than on a website.

The warnings come in fresh guidance from the Ministry of Justice and make a mockery of promises to name and shame criminals locally as part of the Government’s Justice Seen, Justice Done campaign.

Just last month the measure was strongly promoted by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, and Louise Casey, the Government’s anti-social behaviour tsar, and a number of websites, including ones from Dorset and Merseyside police forces, were heralded as shining examples.

The MoJ guidance, aimed at local authorities and police, stressed that the presumption should be to routinely publish details, such as an offender’s their name, age, where they are from and their offence, after they have been convicted in court.

But the document then listed a series of caveats where that publication may be limited or not appropriate.

Officers will need a specific reason to publish photographs, it said.

Data protection and human rights laws mean there are also restrictions on what is published, how it is made public and for how long.

Police and town halls should take into account the impact of publishing on the offenders’ family, the guidance said.

Officials should also consider whether it is “proportionate” to make the verdicts and sentences public and whether publishing personal details could have an “unjustifiably adverse effect” on the criminal.

It should only be online for a month because it is not supposed to be “an ongoing record”, the document, Publishing Sentencing Outcomes, said.

They can consider saying just that “someone” has been convicted of a crime without revealing the specific details of who, if that is enough to reassure the public.

With minor crimes they can say only the number committed and how many were dealt with and not publish any more details.

Fears about the long term “adverse consequences” of publication on criminals mean the data might be limited to people who live near where the crime is committed.

And instead of putting it on the web, forces can hand out leaflets or make information available at public meetings.

“Online publicity needs to be justified, and will not usually be appropriate for minor offences/sentences or for first time offenders,” the document states.

MORE HERE

Posted by peiper     on 12/03/2009 at 08:55 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Daily Life • Family • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - November 08, 2009

Police secretly follow mother after hearing her reprimand children.

BMEWS readers, When you were a little kid and maybe acted up or got a bit difficult, did mom ever threaten you with, “Wait till I get you home?” Or, “You’re gonna get it.” And didn’t we always know what “IT” was.  In my home “it” was never an idle or empty threat.

Well, if you live in this part of the world today mom and dad, ya better be careful where and how loud you threaten your offspring. 
It isn’t just the walls that have ears anymore. Oh no.  Off duty but officious cops have ears too.  So look around, look over your shoulder, look behind you because ...............  you will be questioned later.  You WILL be visited by .... The Plod.  (Britspeak for cops, in case you didn’t know that)

A mother who threatened to smack her children while out shopping was secretly followed home by an off duty policeman and was later questioned by officers.


By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
Published: 12:15PM GMT 08 Nov 2009

The 34-year-old woman, who has asked to remain anonymous for the sake of her family, was also warned by social services that she could face further action and that a file on the incident is being kept on record.

Last night, charities criticised the police’s action as “disproportionate” and pointed out that parents in England and Wales are allowed to smack their children.

Friends of the woman, who works in a bookstore and is married to an aeronautics expert, said that she had been left distressed by the ordeal.

Shopping in a supermarket in Woolston, Southampton, the woman’s children, aged 11 and 4, were misbehaving, provoking her to warn them that they would “get a hiding when they got home”.

She claims she did not actually smack them afterwards and says that, while smacking is used as a form of punishment in their home, it is not something she often does.

However, an off duty policemen who had been standing near her in the supermarket followed her on the 15 minute journey home and then reported the incident to Hampshire Police’s child protection team.

It was not until six weeks later that she was visited at her home by two officers and quizzed on how often she smacks her children. The pair also gave her parenting tips. They suggested that she should use a ‘naughty step’ or withdraw treats as a more effective form of punishment.

A month later, she received a letter from Southampton social services saying that her behaviour had raised concerns over the children’s welfare.

Kim Wills, information officer for Southampton council’s Children First department, wrote: “I am writing to inform you that we have received information on 24th September 2009 from Hampshire Police advising of concerns for ------- and ------ regarding an incident on 6th August 2009 where the children were chastised in public.”

The letter stated that Children’s Services would not be taking further action “at this time”, but told her that the information would be kept on record.

A spokesman for the department said that the incident would be held in their files until her children leave school, which could be up to another 13 years.

While it is a crime to smack children so hard it leaves a mark, mild smacking is allowed as “reasonable chastisement”.

Friends of the woman describe her as a good, patient mother, who is loved by her children.

They said she had been upset by the police’s questioning and shocked to learn that she and her children had been followed home.

A spokesman for Hampshire Police defended the action of its officers, arguing that the manner of her reprimand had caused alarm.

“An off-duty officer reported to our child protection team an incident involving a women in Woolston, Southampton who they saw chastising her children.

“It was not an ordinary telling off and because of what the woman said and the way her children reacted to it, it gave our officer reasonable grounds for concern for the children’s welfare and they may be at risk of physical chastisement.”

The spokesman added: “We followed this up as you would expect any police force to do, especially when it comes to the safety of children.

“Officers from the team spoke to the woman later at her home about the concerns and passed the details of the case to social services as is normal practice in such cases. No further action was deemed necessary by us.”

The mother denies that there was anything extraordinary about the way she scolded her children, and said that they were simply upset because they do not like being reprimanded.

A spokesman for Care, a social welfare charity, questioned the need for the police’s action unless there was a clear indication that she was going to beat them.

“One fears that it was a wholly disproportionate response to a threatened smack informed by the destructive and censorious views of those opinion formers who refuse to make a distinction between smacking, which can actually be very helpful, and beating which is a serious crime,” he added.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 11/08/2009 at 08:29 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Family • Outrageous • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - November 05, 2009

The Return of Daddy

Honestly, if this doesn’t bring tears to your eyes, you are a sociopathic liberal.

But then, using sociopath and liberal in the same sentence is redundant.

I’ve posted this under ‘Military’ because, for some reason, BMEWS lacks a ‘Family’ category. Hint.

H/T to Viral Footage

I’ve watched this numerous times, and I always get something in my eyes…

Posted by Christopher     on 11/05/2009 at 11:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Family •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner